NY: "Shoot to wound" Bill?

[H.W. French]

Mod's: If this is better suited for the General Forum, please move or delete as you see fit.

I ran across this while surfing the headlines this morning. In light of recent shootings involving LEO's, Annette Robinson has sponsored http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02952 . It appears to have little to no backing by LEO's (judging by the responses).

Is this Hindsight Legislation, Knee-Jerk Legislation or just plain ignorance?
Can any resident of the Empire State shed a little light on this?
I know this is not directly related to Second Amendment legislation, but I am interested in the implications of such a law should it ever get legs.

Perhaps instead of an arm or leg shot, they could just shoot the weapon out of the suspects hand.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think is it ok for L and CR as it speaks to conditions to use lethal force - which is a legal issue.

The issue has been discussed on the policeone.com site and Force Science.

It is obviously nonsensical from a clear technical point of view. It is trying to deal with the problem of false alarms - shooting innocents or those who indiscretion may not merit lethal force. But it is a nonsolution for well known reasons.

However, it does bring up the 'shoot to kill' vs. 'shoot to stop' debate. When folks post blood lust - shoot to kill rants, it does give support to stupid proposals as above.

Until we have phasers on stun - then this will continue.

[Mike Irwin]

The way that reads she may as well just be taking the officer's firearms from them, painting day-glo orange targets on their chests, and sending them out with the expectation that they'll do a good job.

[Tom Servo]

In a department with a 17% hit rate, aiming for harder-to-hit targets is going to result in collateral damage, and it will generate some very expensive lawsuits.

Frankly, I can't think of a single instructor, LEO or civilian, who thinks "shoot for the leg" is a feasible strategy.

[Mike Irwin]

"Frankly, I can't think of a single instructor, LEO or civilian, who thinks "shoot for the leg" is a feasible strategy."

According to things I've read over the years that was apparently the strategy for some European police forces for many years post World War II, but I think it died when violent political terrorist groups like Bader Meinhoff in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, started to show that they really didn't care much for the concept of law and order, or if they killed someone, especially someone from the government.

[LanceOregon]

I believe that I have heard some advocate aiming for the hip not that long ago here in the USA. In theory, if you could cause enough damage to the hip joint, that should stop an attacker and knock them down. It would sort of be the equivalent of a big game hunter aiming for an animal's front shoulder to disable him and knock him down.

However, from a PRACTICAL point of view, I think that such a strategy would be extremely flawed. After all, how big a target is the human hip joint?

Handguns are not anywhere near as accurate as rifles. And they don't do anywhere near as much damage. On top of that, big game hunters usually shoot still or near still animals, while a criminal is usually not going to be sitting still waiting to be shot.

This Assemblywoman obviously has some serious misunderstandings about firearms and how law enforcement deals with criminals. It is scary that such people can actually write legislation.

The way that she added that provision to make any doctor performing an abortion where the mother loses her life guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter is quite bizarre too.

This assemblywoman may have some kind of hidden agenda in crafting this bill the way she did. She certainly seems to lack common sense.

I thought that the people of Brooklyn had more sense than to elect someone to office like this. Here is her official portrait:



.

[Brian Pfleuger]

This bill is a meaningless political ploy.

It serves no purpose except to garner support from this womans left-fringe supporters.

The bill has no co-sponsors, will not get any, and will never get past committee.


This sentence alone shows the knowledge level of the writer:

"Further,
the number of times an officer shoots a person should not exceed the
minimal number necessary to stop the person. If one shot accomplishes
the purpose, it is neither necessary or appropriate for an officer to
empty his barrel."


On the other hand, in theory, the bill does little more than put feet to the theory of "shoot to stop", which is supposed to be what we are all doing anyway, police included, except in very limited circumstances. This is not to say that I would support the bill but, either way, it has little purpose in the real world.

[LanceOregon]

The question remains, though, what is the motivation behind her writing such a bill? Does she believe that too many black men are dying at the hands of police officers?

<snip> = No need to go there on that last comment. Caution advised.
GEM

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by LanceOregon

The question remains, though, what is the motivation behind her writing such a bill?

Political ploy.

She can go to the extreme left-wing nut jobs and point to this bill as proof that she's "trying".

At the same time, she can forget that it ever happened when she talks to the rest of the voting spectrum because the VAST majority of voters will never be aware that it even exists.

Political posturing. Plain and simple.

[kodiakbeer]

Actually, there was a "shoot for the groin" school of thought a few years back. It's not as ridiculous as it sounds (well, almost...) because the groin consists of the pelvic girdle, spine and hip joints, so any hit in the area breaks a supporting structure and drops the BG. And then there's the "I've been shot in the &*%$!" factor...

I wonder how the legislator will feel if she gets the law passed and NY police begin training for groin shots?

[Double Naught Spy]

Actually, there was a "shoot for the groin" school of thought a few years back. It's not as ridiculous as it sounds (well, almost...) because the groin consists of the pelvic girdle, spine and hip joints, so any hit in the area breaks a supporting structure and drops the BG.

Which has been shown to be untrue as the structures most defintely do not always break and often are not even hit despite a soft tissue hit to the area.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Guys,

This bill is not based on any legitimate theory, right or wrong.

It's not based on an understanding of anatomy, handgun wounding potential or crime scene/autopsy reports.

It's not based on real world police behavior or misbehavior, wants or needs or concerns about police brutality.

It's an appeal to the people that this sort of thing appeals to. Nothing more.

Don't over analyze it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Pelvic shot was not designed to be a substitute for a more potentially lethal spot because you weren't trying to be lethal.

It was a proposed failure to stop drill if COM was covered with armor. Dropping the opponent would give you an advantage. However, a fallen person still could shoot you and it may not be likely to destroy your stability.

As far as the issue of race - I would advise caution. You should know the literature on this before you opine. There is clear evidence that both normal subjects and LEOs are more likely to have a lower criterion for seeing an object as a gun if held by a person of color. It's also the case that well designed police training reduces this effect. That info has penetrated the LEO training regimes and is presented at LEO training conferences because of the research.

Does that mean that all shoots with cross racial participants are bad - of course not. However, one might be worried that such tendencies exist. Police are also concerned with blue on blue shoots - some of which have a racial component.

That does not mean that idiot proposals are the way to go. However, a motivation to prevent inappropriate shootings is not an evil motivation. Rantings about liberals and race are not productive.

[kodiakbeer]

Which has been shown to be untrue as the structures most defintely do not always break and often are not even hit despite a soft tissue hit to the area.

Which is why it's "almost" as ridiculous as it sounds. Yet, if this stupid bill passes that's what cops will be left with as their best option.

[johnwilliamson062]

In a department with a 17% hit rate

That is withing one or two percentage point of the national average. I think the LEO national average is actually 17%, or was a few years ago.
Civilian non-BG was a point ot two lower than LEO, and BG was a point or two lower than civilian.

Political ploy. Next thread.

[44 AMP]

Most likely political ploy. Second most likely; ignorance of aspects of firearms, ammo, and shooting situation dynamics.

Least likely:
Maybe she read that study from a few years back about the early years of Glaser Safety Slugs, and how they actually had a higher "one shot stop" percentage with hits in the abdomen or groin than they did with center of mass torso hits?

......

Nah!

[Webleymkv]

Apparently, the assemblywoman isn't particularly familiar with human anatomy either, a shot to the leg or groin can be quite fatal should the femoral artery be severed.

[LanceOregon]

That does not mean that idiot proposals are the way to go. However, a motivation to prevent inappropriate shootings is not an evil motivation. Rantings about liberals and race are not productive.

This is currently a major issue being hotly debated and discussed here in Oregon in the city of Portland, one of the most liberal major cities in the entire USA. The city has a significant problem with gang related crime, and the vast majority of the gangs are either black or latino. The police department has come under tremendous fire this year because 3 young black men who all had issues with mental health have been killed by the department so far this year.

All internal investigations and grand juries so far have not found any wrong doing by any of the officers. In the latest incident, the dead man actually shot a police officer twice with a handgun, before other officers themselves fired back and killed him in a clear act of self defense. Yet he, like the other two, are all being treated as martyrs murdered by the police.

A crisis has been declared by many in Portland over the matter. The Reverend Jessee Jackson even came to the city in February to decry what he labeled racism by the police force. The mayor even fired the police chief a couple of months ago over the controversy, when the death toll only stood at 2.

So like it or not, race is indeed playing a very significant role in generating controversy over police shootings. And it seems that some liberal political figures, like the Reverend Jackson, for example, are all too eager to exploit this.

Is this not a valid point to make? Is this not part of the equation of the controversy surrounding police shootings in our society these days? It sure is playing a major role here in Oregon currently. It has been headline news here for months, and is an on-going hot subject for the talk radio stations and online forums here.

In this latest police killing, which was done by the department's anti-gang task force, the police have now explained that the suspect matched a gangster appearance profile, because of the way he was dressed with a hoodie, something somewhat odd to be wearing on a hot evening. When they then saw him break some minor traffic laws, they then decided to pull him over.

It has been determined that the 9mm Taurus Millennium handgun that the suspect used to shoot officer Christopher Burley was locally purchased, but had been stolen in a burglary in 2006.

Believe it or not, the mayor of Portland is now blaming lax gun laws in the state of Oregon for the incident ever taking place. He is blaming the easy availability of the Taurus pistol for the tragedy happening. See this latest news report for full details:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...se_report.html


Many liberals seem to think that more gun control and more restrictions on the police are the solutions for problems in our society. But I honestly don't see how either is ever going to do anything at all to reduce crime.

.

[Musketeer]

This is NYC and she is caterring to an anti NYPD electorate. The officers of the NYPD do not keep her in office and she counts on nothing from them.

I live on Long Island and hear about these moronic city council actions regularly.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My point is educational. Race has been found to be a factor in experimental tests of shoot/no shoot decisions. It generates false alarms to the detriment of people of color. Race is an issue in policing because it has been a real issue. Luckily, it is getting better.

One should know this if you engage the issue. One also has to be aware that socio-political forces led spokespeople to ignore evidence. Internal investigations can be biased one way and political leaders can be be biased another.

Dispassionate investigations of particular cases are needed such that facts can clear away the rants from either side.

Dealing with emotionally disturbed folks is very difficult due to their irrationality and the risks involved to the officer. The police - psychology literature has a strong focus on this.

In this case, if the guy shot police, it would seem clear cut. However, there are certainly cases of police malpractice. I lived in Portland and in that time, some officers did engage in racially motivated inappropriate actions.

So, look at the facts and data - then you can evaluate various spokespeople.

Just because a representative or Jesse Jackson may be full of BS doesn't mean that one shouldn't understand the issue.

Does one need more restrictions on police -that's an empirical issue? Certainly, I would argue and the police literature argues that training to avoid ED or racial issues causing bad decisions is useful. If training is seen as a restriction and voids a shoot'em up mentality - I disagree.

Another set of posts would bring on someone ranting how a police person was nasty to them at a traffic stop and took their concealed weapon till they were cleared. There should a restriction against that - you think?

So what is it? Is one's attitude towards restrictions only based on what affects your position.

Sorry not to be reflexive as compared to analytic. The issue is competent police training, educating folks about appropriate firearms usage, etc. That's a better way to deal with rants from politicians.

[Sefner]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

"Further,
the number of times an officer shoots a person should not exceed the
minimal number necessary to stop the person. If one shot accomplishes
the purpose, it is neither necessary or appropriate for an officer to
empty his barrel."

This is the scariness of many policy-makes. People with little to no (or even false) background, training, experience, or credentials on an issue making policy about how it should be done. It would be humorous if it wasn't so serious I agree with several previous posters on how it is simply political posturing.

On the race subject, my area (South-East Michigan) is going through it right now with the 7 year old girl tragically killed in the Detroit police raid. It is a very complex and sensitive issue and it is muddied even further by people ON BOTH SIDES slinging misinformation, emotional arguments, and mud. We have some people here saying that "Well they wouldn't have thrown a flashbang into a white home" and other people saying "*insert racism here*" and other people saying that the DPD are a "testing ground" for future ATF raids and federal take-overs to push the law of police brutality and civil rights (I kid you not, that one was even from someone in the Gun community).

So I really appreciate it when Glenn says to know the literature and background of an issue like racism in law enforcement before entering the conversation. Because not knowing the background leads to statements like the above.

On the other hand, I also appreciate when someone like LanceOregon stands up and says "Look, these policies and actions taken by these people in the name of race is kind of wrong". Like Glenn alluded to, impartiality is what is needed in cases of racism like this. But when people do come out and start attention whoring for whoever will listen to their poisonous drivel, there needs to be some people who say "look, this race thing is ridiculous".

Back to OP's topic, I see this almost as an educational opportunity. If someone thinks the government should be regulating things like this, point out this one and say "how is this even remotely a good idea?". Most people will understand what Lance said:

Originally Posted by LanceOregon

However, from a PRACTICAL point of view, I think that such a strategy would be extremely flawed. After all, how big a target is the human hip joint?

Handguns are not anywhere near as accurate as rifles. And they don't do anywhere near as much damage. On top of that, big game hunters usually shoot still or near still animals, while a criminal is usually not going to be sitting still waiting to be shot.

and

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

a shot to the leg or groin can be quite fatal should the femoral artery be severed.

But again, this is all just her posturing.

[Nickel Plated]

Even if this passes (which is not happening), I don't see it having any realistic effect on anything.

Judge: Officer, why did you shoot Mr. What'shisname in the chest instead of aiming for the legs?

Cop: I did aim for the legs but he kept moving and I missed and hit his chest.

There would be no real way of telling whether the cop really tried aiming for the extremities. Besides cops usually don't have too much trouble getting out of a unjustified shooting trial with nothing more than a desk assignment for a few weeks. Unless there is just completely overwhelming evidence against them.

I live in NYC and I can tell that if this law were to pass the cops will brew up a s**t-storm so big the entire legislature will drown in it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hey, Brooklyn guy - I'm from Brooklyn by birth. Don't try to beat the language filters. We Brooklyn guys have to show some class!

Flatbush is in my blood still!

GEM